THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale of empty containers, were substantial questions of law and the High Court erred in dismissing the application of the Department on those questions and the High Court had to decide them." ITA No.44/2017

M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

13), an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The issue that came up for consideration before the Tribunal was regarding the disallowance of an amount of Rs.92,28,405/- under proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The second appeal raises the said question. 4. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: i. In the facts

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCEITY LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

C Order dated 25.10.2016 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. The appellant raises the following substantial questions of law in the instant appeal: I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -9- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- i) The payment made by the assessee to the Sub-agents fall within the clutches of Section

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed the depreciation claimed. The Assessing Officer adjusted the actual cost of assets of the assessee in the assessment year 2009- 10 as follows: STATEMENT DEPRECIATION AS ON 31/03/2009 SHOWING DEDUCTION OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED: - Block of asset WDV as on 01/04/2008 as per 143(3) order dated 15/12/2010 for A.Y 2008-09 Subsidy Gross Value after subsidy 1 Buildings

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(i) was on the ground that the commission paid was fees for technical services on which tax is deductible at source, which the assessee failed to deduct. The amount shown as commission paid to the non-resident was added to I.T.A.No

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGHAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

disallowed on the ground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a valid return filed by the appellant in terms of the IT Act. It was the stand of the Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act, the claim for deduction could not be considered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN vs. APPOLLO TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

13,12,992/- related to the trade debts and the remaining amount represented two categories as follows: 1. Advances given for acquisition of capital assets - Rs.28,67,407/- 2. Advances given for acquisition of Revenue items -Rs.2,32,93,575/- 1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.172/2013 -5- The Assessing Officer treated the claim of Rs.28,67,407/- as capital

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation